Daugherty v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Daugherty v. State

570 S.W.3d 680

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106714

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 680 (Daugherty v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daugherty v. State, 570 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Dack Daugherty appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on a single allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no clear error because Daugherty failed to plead facts not refuted by the record warranting relief. Thus, no evidentiary hearing was required.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Dack Daugherty appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on a single allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no clear error because Daugherty failed to plead facts not refuted by the record warranting relief. Thus, no evidentiary hearing was required.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daugherty-v-state-moctapp-2019.